User talk:Kevinkor2

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{

From: Kevinkor2

To:

FYI, JBFrenchhorn and Smee,

Your discussion in talk pages mentioned Midwest Christian Outreach (MCOI). I have listed the article on MCOI for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest Christian Outreach. Thank you.

P.S.: There are no real editors for the MCOI article, so I am contacting one or two outside people who might be interested based on links to MCOI.

Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kevin, I saw that you removed the catg: Christian fundamentalism from the articles such as Local churches, Watchman Nee, and several others, based on the assumption that a "fundamentalism doped" article should contain at least one mention of the word fundamental or its derived. Well, I don't know much about the other groups and people, but I do think that the above three article I mentioned falls under the criteria C. F (appropriately, if you read them).

The another thing I wanted to say is that, Say, if I add a paragraph in these articles and use the word "fundamentalism" in some sense then the article becomes suitable under the cat: Christian Fundamentalism. How silly is this, Kevin!! Let's give a thought on this and reply me with what your understandings are regarding the inclusion of articles on wikipedia under the category "C. F".

Ya, I just want to discuss this (minor but important), otherwise I have no other reason writing on your page or some duty to put these articles on the catg: C. F. Please give it thought! Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HopeChrist. It is good to write to you.

After reading the articles, I agree that

I agree with you that it would be silly if the sole criteria of whether an article should be a part of Category:Christian fundamentalism is whether it has "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" in the body of the article. However, because of their perjorative meanings, "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" have become terms that require explanation. An article on Watchman Nee would have to answer the questions, "Is Watchman Nee a fundamentalist?" and "What type of fundamentalist is Watchman Nee? A theological fundamentalist? A political fundamentalist?" If I see an article in Category:Christian fundamentalism without this explanation, I assume (sometimes incorrectly) it is used in the perjorative sense and remove it.

These are my understandings about catg: C. F. What are your thoughts?

P.S.: I have put a copy of this on my talk page and your talk page. Because this discussion helps catg: C. F. and Wikipedia as a whole, I have also added this to the category's talk page. I will try to keep the three synchronized.

-- Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevin,

First thought, fundamentalist Christianity somehow also includes fundamentals of Christian faith whether "it" (the group, movement, or a person/individual) may or may not be politically active. I fully agree to the point that in modern USA today, the word has deviated from its original meaning but then the Wikipedia is not just for the English (speakers) readers of USA but for all the English speakers of this world. For example, when I see the word fundamentalist or fundamentalism (in relation to christians or Christianity) I understand (perceives) its application in terms of conservatism.

Second thought, the word fundamentalism became politically ignited in the last 20 or so years because of the degradation and deviation of the mainline Christianity from the word of God (today). For example, the movement such as "King James only movement" railing against all or most of the modern Bible translation. Another example, most of the revival movements of the last century (including the 1980-90s in USA) -- the word "fundamental" became something symbolic for "coming back to the basics".

So, I believe, we need little more discussion on this for not to make this so called catg. "Christian fundamentalism" a narrower one. Thanks for sharing the thoughts. HopeChrist (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hail and well met, Kevinkor! I just restored a category you had removed from Focus on the Family. You were right to remove the cat, as there was no supporting statement in the article. However, now that I have added a supporting statement (with sources), I hope you find it acceptable. On a personal note, I note that our personal points of view diverge a bit, to say the least. I hope we can use our differences to find the ever-elusive "Neutral Point of View". ;-) In any case, I look forward to learning from you. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JeffBillman, for your note and changes to Focus on the Family. Unfortunately, they were reverted by Knulclunk. I have taken the issue to Talk:Focus on the Family. Hopefully, we will get an answer there. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again, Kevin! I just read your analysis of Frederick Clarkson's definition of Dominionism. While Clarkson provides an excellent working definition, as a working definition it is still imperfect. Also, I've noticed that Clarkson's definition is often misinterpreted by well-meaning Christians on the American political right.

You state, "Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it does not change the beliefs of the American people or the roots of American democracy. According to a 2007 survey, 78.4% of adults identified themselves as Christian, down from 86.4% in 1990, but still being a supermajority. I believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character was fundamental to early American culture." All well and good, but this does not make the United States a Christian nation in the same sense that Iran is an Islamic nation. We do not require that our citizens or even our public officials be Christians. Tolerance for personal religious belief, expressed privately, has always been a hallmark of American jurisprudence and public sentiment.

Next, you state your beliefs, followed by a brief statement to the effect that "religion is man's construction." I see nothing Dominionist in that sentiment whatsoever. Contrast that against statements by Dominionists which (according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, itself consisting of more than a few Christians) propose the death penalty against apostates, pagans, homosexuals, astrologists, and others. Source

Finally, you appear to view the options for interpreting our legal foundations as dichotomous; either wholly reconciled to so-called "biblical law" or anchorless, on the winds of change. Neither view is accurate. Rather, our legal foundations are steeped in the traditions of English Common Law, itself not just the product of biblical study but also centuries of Christian tradition. To abandon this for a "return" to "biblical foundation" would be like discarding the past 20 centuries of academia in favor of the [Roman and Greek] classical arts and sciences. I sense you know this, and agree; along with most Christian conservatives. Dominionists, however, do not agree. They have plainly advocated the abrupt abandonment of American (and English) jurisprudence in favor of this mythical "biblical foundation". Far from being "conservative" (in the sense that they seek to conserve certain extant traditions), Dominionists are truly advocates for change.

So in conclusion, no, you are not a Dominionist. As I am not only a bit of an advocate against Dominionism, but also at least a fiscal conservative myself (I am a right-leaning Libertarian), it troubles me when people on both the political left and right conflate opposition to Dominionism with agreement with the American political left. In reality, I seldom am in such agreement, and I note that there are a few other, less vocal opponents of Dominionism who, like me, tend to be more conservative in our political outlook. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...at

(copied to User talk:69.121.221.174, User talk:Schrandit, and User talk:Kevinkor2.)

Hi 69.121.221.174 and Schrandit,

Since I am monitoring the page, Focus on the Family, I noticed 69.121.221.174 making edits and Schrandit undoing them.

Because I was concerned about this, I looked at all of 69.121.221.174's recent changes. Some of his/her changes involved terminology about 'mother' vs. 'pregnant woman' for a person who is pregnant who has not given birth yet. Of these changes that 69.121.221.174 has made, most were undone by Schrandit.

• undone:
  • Pro-life movement
  • Abortion and mental health
  • Indirect abortion
  • Ethical aspects of abortion
  • Beginning of human personhood
• some not undone:
  • Christianity and abortion
  • Religion and abortion
  • Pro-choice

Some of 69.121.221.174 changes that did not involve this dispute were also undone by Schrandit:

• Same-sex marriage and the family
• Focus on the Family
• History of lesbianism

I recommend that the dispute, 'mother' vs. 'pregnant woman', be taken to the talk page of Religion and abortion.

I also recommend that Schrandit and 69.121.221.174 not change terminology in bulk until the dispute is resolved.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine recommendation, but not one that Schrandit accepted. Some of his changes were fixed by others, the rest I fixed myself. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kevin, I appreciate your concern, the "mother" v. "pregnant woman" debate has (unsurprisingly) been had a few time and consensus has landed on "mother" (Talk:Religion and abortion#.27Mother.27 vs .27pregnant woman.27]]) this has been pointed out to the anon a few time but he/she wars on. ([2]) - Schrandit (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at my talk page, posted same response to the template discussion page. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the checkuser was overridden but to be honest, I don't know if that decision was for the best. I have heard that Spotfixer left that address, but how would we know that? I remain skeptical. I'll do my best to refrain from fraternal pronouns. - Schrandit (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it seems that you often think that people are Spotfixer. You thought that I was Spotfixer, and even managed to support a ban that was overturned. You also thought that User:208.80.104.2 was Spotfixer and even managed to get a brief ban that we now have evidence was mistaken, although there's no point overturning it anymore. There was another one some time ago, which I can't find the name of at the moment, that was likewise questionable but apparently stuck. Most recently, you decided that User:Phil Spectre was Spotfixer, and that one didn't even generate a block.

The pattern here is clear: you routinely accuse people of being Spotfixer, and are typically mistaken. It's weird, but hard to deny that Spotfixer is your Moriarty. I think you need to accept that not everyone who disagrees with you is Spotfixer, and that Spotfixer is long gone and probably wasn't any of the alleged socks. Instead, you would be benefit yourself and Wikipedia greatly if you could avoid taking things personally and stick to the content issues that are the cause of people disagreeing with you. Please take this as constructive criticism of the most generous sort. CarolineWH (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, I thought that you were Spotfixer, so did a lot of people, so much so that another used filed for a checkuser and it turns out you edit the same articles the same way from the same ip adress. What an amazing coincidence, so amazing in fact that I am having a very hard time believing it is just a coincidence.
2. Support a ban? I had no hand in your conviction.
3. That is a lie. I have never had any interaction with User:208.80.104.2.
4. "There was another one some time ago, which I can't find the name of at the moment, that was likewise questionable but apparently stuck." What in all creation are you talking about?
5. "Most recently, you decided that User:Phil Spectre was Spotfixer" No. Another user brought a checkuser case, I found some evidence that I thought was interesting so I mentioned it. I have never had any interaction with Phil Spectre before or since.

There are only 2 usernames that I have ever so much as wisppered an insinuation at. The first was TruthIIPower and I was right about that account. The second was you and I'm not convinced that I was wrong there. - Schrandit (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to drop this, so I'm not going to respond, as it would be unfair to you. CarolineWH (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to mention it and I will, expecially when you bring it up. - Schrandit (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice, Alan.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my deletion nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the justification and professionalism vis-à-vis Talk:Discovery Institute.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, UnicornTapestry.

I appreciate you raising the questions on the talk page. It was good that you challenged an unclear edit. I'm happy I was able to satisfy your concerns.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) :)[reply]

... for the constructive changes/corrections to the revision I made yesterday to The Fellowship/C Street entry.Likesausages (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevinkor,Kindly organize the "Abraham Vereide" page into appropriate paragraph sections, as you have sucessfully done at an earlier stage and since you have the electronic expertise in formatting.I have added recently some new research gleanings to the page which is illuminating about Abraham and his life's influences and regarding those who motivated his life's course. Sincerely, Ivan Anderson

[3] - Schrandit (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevinkor2,

There is a line through your decision to "delete" Hate groups categories, on the discussion page. Is this something you did or vandalism?--DCX (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougcweho,

It is something I did: I decided to change my decision from "delete" to "listify". (Both have the same effect of deleting the category, but "listify" ends up creating a "List of hate groups" page. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like the idea either, it's probably a bit selective of Manhattan's anti-Roman polemic, and skipping his Modernist poetry. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...

feel free

to add it in!

Also,

Chick Publications Inc.#Overview

section. I'd like to keep the two in sync if possible.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lively debate. Funny title, given the debate is on Scott Lively. I'm just writing here to say I'm still looking into adding the Lively ref and associated new text. It's just I'm too tired tonight and likely busy for a few days. And thanks for calmly injecting calm into the debate as some apparent newbies learn the BLP, RS, AGF ropes--one even just made a personal attack and someone else reverted it. I'm telling ya, the personal attack / soapbox thing is making me really wary about adding the proposed text and it is they who proposed it initially. Listen, if you think you've got good reason to add it and it's encyclopedic, go ahead and add it. I appreciate your patience in waiting for my input but at the same time I don't want to hold up something an experienced editor feels is appropriate for the article. Nice working with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that was a great improvement!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.43 (talk • contribs)

Template:LORD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's not actually a vote and there's also no obligation to stick to the same answer; I've changed my answer already. If any of the responses convinces you that a source is reliable and relevant, then please support it, regardless of how many sources you want to keep. We need a deep pool of sources to survive the expected attempts at removal. Dylan Flaherty 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long should aricle stay on your side ? 92.252.122.169 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay in user space until we get some references that establish notability.

The equivalent article in German Wikipedia is de:David Berger (Theologe).

Unfortunately, I don't speak German, so I cannot translate the references.

However, the ones that might establish notability are

• <ref>Stellungnahme der Fördergemeinschaft „Theologisches“ vom 13. April 2010</ref>
• <ref>David Berger: Ansonsten muss ich dies als Verleumdung betrachten, kath.net, 14. April 2010</ref>
• <ref name="fr">David Berger: "Ich darf nicht länger schweigen", Frankfurter Rundschau, 22. April 2010</ref>
• <ref>Kirche feuert schwulen Theologen, Frankfurter Rundschau, 27. Juli 2010</ref>

Sometime, I might let Internet Explorer's Translation Accelerator take a look at the German article.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<humor>Some German words are similar to English ones, but my first glace at the edit tab thought it said: "Bearbeiten » Bait the bears!".</humor>--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Schrandit and I were just wondering if your votes for keeping some of the cited sources for the statement about false medical information were still the same. Since some of your concerns (namely, you thought the sources didn't support the statement, but Dylan quoted lines from the sources that did support it) have been addressed, I thought it might be worth checking so that no one's claiming your voice on their side in error. Roscelese (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not presume to speak for other editors. Kevin, are you still of the opinion that the 14 sources for the last sentence in the lead should be cut down to a more manageable number. On the talk page you suggested that 2 would be sufficient. Are you still of this opinion and if so do you have any particular opinion as to which would be the best to keep? - Schrandit (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you wondering too? I would never presume to claim another editor's support if I wasn't ready to ask them up front, and I assumed that you would live up to the same ethical standard. Roscelese (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Salegi. I'm going to let my changes [4][5] stew for a few hours. Maybe they will be reverted. Maybe not.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevinkor2. I replied to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#right word?. -- -œ^™

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! Mike Restivo (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, in case you didn't already, that abortion-related articles are now subject to general sanctions, including but not limited to 1RR. Going by what's already occurred (two editors blocked at Lila Rose and the sanctions were imposed what, a day ago?), it looks like there's going to be a lot of admin involvement as well as a lot of attempts to game the system. Be careful! We've edited very productively together, and it would be a shame if you returned from your break and immediately got blocked or something because you weren't aware of the new rules. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevinkor2 is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia some time later.

Hi everyone,

I am enjoying a longer wikibreak as other interests are occupying my time.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently contributed to the

Hi, your Userpage uses this template: {{sc|L|ORD}}. Shorrtly this template will disappear and produce strange results. I suggest you change the text into {{smallcaps|Lord}} to get the same result. -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DePiep. I appreciate the notice. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice, Ricky81682. I agree with the delete.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

File copyright problem with File:Estimated adult (15-49) HIV prevalence, Uganda, 1990-2007.png

Thank you for uploading